Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.MURALI SHANKAR
Thangaesakki – Appellant
Versus
Sivasami – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the complaint and case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. overview of trial court proceedings. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. details of the arguments presented by the accused. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. presumptions under ni act. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. financial capacity of the complainant. (Para 19 , 21 , 23 , 28) |
| 6. conclusion of the court dismissing the appeal. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.No.150 of 2023 dated 15.03.2024 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (hereinafter referred as 'NI') Act.
3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, upon receiving the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and on perusing the records, upon satisfied that there existed a prima facie case took the case on file in S.T.C.No.150 of 2023 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court sent the copies of complaint and records along with summons. Af
The burden is on the complainant to prove financial capacity when questioned; a mere presumption does not suffice if evidence is lacking.
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
The failure of the accused to respond to a statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act supports the presumption of debt and liability, which the accused must rebut with credible evidence.
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The court upheld the acquittal as the complainant failed to prove the loan's existence or that the cheque was issued for legitimate debt, emphasizing the rebuttable nature of presumptions under the N....
The court emphasized that once a cheque's execution is admitted, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the cheque was not for consideration, highlighting the importance of statutory presumpt....
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the initial burden on the complainant to prove the circumstances under which the cheque was issued and that it was....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
